Mikeboll’s belief in a flat world

[Proclaimer]

First off, I don’t think it is a real photo, rather it is likely a CGI or a composite image.

That said, real photos of Earth from space do not show stars for the same reason photos taken during daylight hours of the sky show no stars. Guess what, the stars are actually still there, it’s just that they cannot be seen because the light of the stars cannot compete with the light of the sun. Likewise, the stars cannot compete with the light emanating off the Earth when a photo of Earth is taken from space. Further, have you ever tried photographing the stars at night without using a tripod and very slow shutter speed? What was the result?

Another argument debunked.

I think that is everything now. I guess this topic is complete right?

[Sharp2edgedsword]

“Its photoshopped cause it has to be.” Remember that time I took that picture of “Pluto” and it had the WALTDisney character incorporated in it. How’s the barometric pressure on your side of the plane?

[Proclaimer]

Sharp, no disrespect, but realise for me the truth matters to the point that my words may be offensive to some. So here I go:

You appear to not be the sharpest tool in the shed. I’m betting you flunked science and any other subject that requires logic. I’ve debated with hard headed Flat Earther who I think are smart, but are unable to be objective. But you seem to be both unobjective and lacking any kind of rational scientific thinking.

But I have nothing against people who lack rational and objective thinking, I just don’t think they should set themselves up in these areas and expect people to take them seriously.

What are you like at art or sport. Perhaps you are good at relating to people or good at management. In short, God gave everyone gifts and a unique personality. You need to find what it is that God created for you and the unique thing that he wants you to do. I can guarantee that he didn’t call you to convince people that the Earth is flat.

[Proclaimer]

Modern science points to a creator

Obviously, there are theories that are wrong, but there are at least 4 major discoveries that prove that there has to be a creator.

All Flat Earth ignorance does is shame the faith. I know plenty of bright people who are Atheists who would never believe in the Bible because of the way it has been misrepresented by the ignorant. Contrary to ignorance on both sides of the fence (science and the bible) there is harmony in the knowledge of the universe and scripture. Even the greatest scientists believed in a creator. The creation alone was a good enough testimony to that and a globe earth never put anyone off God.

[Dig4truth]

Wouldn’t the Creator know how His universe works? Consider the following:

 

Psalm 19: 4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

 

Our Creator seems to think that there is a tent for the sun. He thinks that the sun moves in relation to the earth. But you know better apparently.

 

[Proclaimer]

The irony here Dig is is the sun doesn’t rise on a flat earth. It rises from our perspective and on a globe earth. And remember this is David speaking from his own perspective. You know this to be the case because God didn’t create a tent, that is a man made thing.

Further, the circuit is how it appears to us. The Bible makes no claim as to the positions of the stars and planets outside our earthly perspective and why would it?

There are so many perspectives depending on your position and speed that the only one that really matters to man is our own perspective when speaking about the sun and moon etc.

It’s a seen from Earth because the Bible was written for man, not angels. And speaking of angels, their perspective is obviously different because the are not earth bound like us.

Some common sense is all that is required.

[Proclaimer]

Perspective

Talking about perspective, this website looks a certain way to you. But what if you were to see the nearly one million lines of code that make it work. What if you could see the ASCII code and then delve deeper to see the binary. These are all legitimate perspectives of this website, but the only relevant one for you is what you see from your perspective and the content that people post.

So it is with the cosmos. The Bible doesn’t speak of the sun as seen from the throne room or from another planet, no it logically speaks of these things from our perspective and looking up.

Once earth was placed around the sun, all these wobbly circuits of the planets became regular orbits.

Truth has a way of making sense and this is certainly the case in the heliocentric model we call the Solar System.

And we are not the centre of everything, God is.

[Dig4truth]

No one said anything about the sun rising. Are we to suppose that because David wrote this that it is not truth? Is it not the “Word of God”, inspired by God’s Holy Spirit?

So David writing with inspiration by the Holy Spirit says there’s a tent for the sun but you know there is not. I am not conflicted at all as to whom I will believe about this, it ain’t you. We have tried to help you understand about the firmament but you seem to know more than the Word of God, at least you judge the Word based on your own understanding.

And yes we are told about the placement of the luminaries, they were placed in the firmament, according to God Himself.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

 

[Dig4truth]

Gee, I wonder were David got all those crazy ideas?

 

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

 

[mikeboll64]

I’m not in the habit of sharing personal messages (which is actually against the HN rules), but in this case I feel that T8 should have said this in the public thread since it got so heated.  Here is his message to me…

Hi Mike.

Remember when you said this?

”Okay, again I posted those last two as one post. It appeared on the site just fine. Then I wanted to edit it to make the Hugh Ross quote red, and it would no longer post. I even closed HN and reopened it. No luck. So again I had to copy and paste just the first half and post it… and then go back and copy and paste the second half and post it. T8, you have some serious glitches with your site…”

Well I have just noticed a whole lot of posts marked as spam and some of these are your posts. I will unspam them so they appear again. I had a look at their content and what stood out as different were numbers like: 1, 642,500,000,000.

Oh well, sorry about that. I will have to keep an eye open for spammed posts in the future and find out what spam service I’m using is doing this.

And here was my reply to him…

So then it wasn’t a matter of me, after more than a decade on your site, suddenly forgetting how to post and edit after all, huh? Thanks for checking into it. Btw, I don’t arrow back to edit. I always click the edit button, make the changes, and then resubmit the post. Of all these years, it only happened for that one short period of maybe a week. It’s back to normal now, which is great. I apologize again for being such an ass about it, but not only was it frustrating that it kept happening; you implying it was user error (with the added insult that maybe I’m not as smart as I thought I was) really set me off when I knew it wasn’t something different that I was doing.

Vindication for being falsely accused is a good thing, and so I’ve always found it in poor spirit that newspapers will ruin a person’s reputation with some FRONT PAGE fake news – only to find out they were wrong and print a tiny retraction hidden within the personal ads or something.  They ruined his reputation on the front page, and the retraction should therefore also be boldly displayed on the front page.  So this is me bringing T8’s retraction to the front page… the place where I was falsely accused.

Personally, I think the spam filter is doing it’s job by recognizing multiple posts with the same content.  The glitch was that editing and re-submitting the edited post shouldn’t register as a second post with the same content.  Somehow some wires got crossed for a while and re-submitting an edited post was registering as submitting a SECOND post with very similar content… thus triggering the spam filter to do its job.  But what do I know about it?

[mikeboll64]

T8:“Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down (ἐπιδυέτω – epidyetō)  on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil”

Strong’s Concordance

epiduó: to set (of the sun)
Original Word: ἐπιδύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: epiduó
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-ee-doo’-o)
Definition: to set (of the sun)
Usage: I sink, set, set during, go down

This is what the Bible says, and as you take it literally and this doesn’t happen in the Flat Earth model, you sir have a problem.

You’ll need to dig deeper, T8…

set 
ἐπιδυέτω (epidyetō)
Verb – Present Imperative Active – 3rd Person Singular
Strong’s Greek 1931: To sink, set, set during, go down. From epi and duno; to set fully.

Strong’s 1931…

Strong’s Concordance
epiduó: to set (of the sun)
Original Word: ἐπιδύω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: epiduó
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-ee-doo’-o)
Definition: to set (of the sun)
Usage: I sink, set, set during, go down.

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin
from epi and dunó
Definition
to set (of the sun)
NASB Translation
go down (1).

First, notice that the verse T8 quoted is the ONLY use of this word in the entire Bible.  Anyone who has done extensive research into the scriptures – using concordances, lexicons and dictionaries – knows that when there is only one instance of a word in scriptures, there is little context to compare, and translators have to use their best guess as to its meaning.  One that comes immediately to mind is the English translation of “Godhead” in Colossians 2:9.  The KJV and older English Bibles used “Godhead” here, but none of the more recent translations do, because more research has shown that “Godhead” is not indicated or merited.  It is a form of the Greek word for “divinity” or “deity”, but the “Godhead” translation was a matter of personal bias by those who believed in a Trinity Godhead.  Note that the newer translations which don’t use “Godhead” are also still translated by Trinitarians.  They just know there is no scholarly reason to translate that word (which is used only once in scripture) as “Godhead”.

When the word is only in scripture once, scholars look for it in secular writings from the same era – to see if those writings will shed some light on its meaning in scripture.

Next, notice that the word in T8’s scripture is a combination of the two Greek words “epi” and “duno”.  “Epi” is a preposition that is used hundreds of times in scripture, and the meaning varies based on the word it’s attached to.  So “duno” is the word we need to look closer at in this case.

Strong’s Concordance
dunó: to enter, to sink into
Original Word: δύνω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: dunó
Phonetic Spelling: (doo’-no)
Definition: to enter, to sink into
Usage: I sink, set (as the sun).

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a form of duó (to sink)
Definition
to enter, to sink into
NASB Translation
set (1), setting (1).

Concerning this word, we first notice that the first (and therefore more prominent) definition is “to enter”.  Secondly, we notice that this word is only used twice in the Bible.  In both cases, the word is used in association with the sun going away over the horizon (perhaps entering in to its chamber as David describes in Psalm 19?), and so I strongly suspect that the second definition of “sink into” or “setting” has no real relation to the word itself, but is forced upon the word due to the bias of translators and scholars for whom the idea of the sun “setting” and “rising” was inbred and commonplace.

So next let’s go to Thayer’s Lexicon…

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 1416: δύνω

δύνω, δύω; 2 aorist ἔδυν; 1 aorist (in Greek writings transitively) ἐδυσα (Mark 1:32 L Tr WH), cf. Alexander Buttmann (1873) Ausf. Spr. ii., p. 156f; Winers Grammar, p. 84 (81); Buttmann, 56 (49); (Veitch, see under the words); to go into, enter; go under, be plunged into, sink in: in the N. T. twice of the setting sun (sinking as it were into the sea), Mark 1:32; Luke 4:40. So times without number in Greek writings from Homer on; the Sept., Genesis 28:11; Leviticus 22:7, etc.; Tobit 2:4; 1 Macc. 10:50. (Compare: ἐκδύνω, ἀπεκδύνω (ἀπεκδύνομαι), ἐνδύνω, ἐπενδύνω, παρεισδύνω, ἐπιδύνω.)

You’ll see again the meaning of “to go into/enter” as the first listed, and therefore most prominent meaning.  Thayer then doesn’t say the word means “setting”, but notes that it is used twice in the NT “of the setting sun (sinking as it were into the sea)”.

Do you see the difference there?  The word doesn’t necessarily MEAN “setting”, but he has applied his own bias and knowledge (that the sun sets) to the Greek word.  So it’s clear that the word is used of the sun going away, but the “setting” idea is an older, post-Copernican idea that is forced onto the word by the scholars.  Just like the translation of “Godhead” is a post-disciple idea that was forced onto that Greek word for “deity/divinity” by scholars for whom the idea of a Trinity Godhead was inbred and commonplace.

Thayer then notes that the word is used multiple times in the writings of Homer in relation to the sun disappearing over the horizon – but again, Homer could have been writing about the sun “going away” or “entering into its chamber”, and these post-Copernican scholars are once again forcing their own idea of the sun “setting” on the word as used by Homer.

But now comes the part where we can really get to the bottom of it.  Thayer notes that this Greek word is used by the authors of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures by 70 scholars who spoke both languages perfectly) for Genesis 28:11 and Leviticus 22:7.  So what Hebrew word were they translating into Greek as “duno”?  This one…

Strong’s 935:  bo
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
abide, apply, attain, be, befall, besiege, bring forth, in,

A primitive root; to go or come (in a wide variety of applications) — abide, apply, attain, X be, befall, + besiege, bring (forth, in, into, to pass), call, carry, X certainly, (cause, let, thing for) to come (against, in, out, upon, to pass), depart, X doubtless again, + eat, + employ, (cause to) enter (in, into, -tering, -trance, -try), be fallen, fetch, + follow, get, give, go (down, in, to war), grant, + have, X indeed, (in-)vade, lead, lift (up), mention, pull in, put, resort, run (down), send, set, X (well) stricken (in age), X surely, take (in), way.

So the word they translated into Greek as “duno” is a Hebrew word that basically means “to go or come”.  Nothing explicit about “setting”, right?  Just coming or going – as in the sun “going away”.  So how is this Hebrew word used in the scriptures?

Genesis 37:30 
HEB: אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־ בָֽא׃ 
NAS: is not [there]; as for me, where am I to go?

Exodus 3:13 
HEB: הִנֵּ֨ה אָנֹכִ֣י בָא֮ אֶל־ בְּנֵ֣י
NAS: Behold, I am going to the sons

Exodus 15:19 
HEB: כִּ֣י בָא֩ ס֨וּס פַּרְעֹ֜ה
NAS: and his horsemen went into the sea,

So just like Strong’s says, it means “to go” or “to come”… depending on context.

1.  So from the beginning, there was a Hebrew word that meant “to come” or “to go” – depending on the context.
2.  Then there was a group of 70 scholars who were fluent in Hebrew and Greek, who translated that Hebrew word into the Greek word “duno” – which obviously STILL meant “to come” or “to go” – depending on the context.
3.  Then came post-Copernican scholars who believed we lived on a ball, and grew up with the idea that when the sun “goes”, it is “setting” behind the curvature of our ball earth.
4.   So when these latter scholars translated the word “duno” into English – although they knew from the definition and context that the writer was talking about the sun “going” away – they applied their own bias and understanding that when the sun “goes away” it is actually “going DOWN”, ie: “SETTING”.
5.   And now we have a definition of “set” for a word that actually only meant “go away”.
6.  And now we have a bunch of English Bibles that, due to bias and personal belief, force the meaning of “sun SET” into the Bible, when the original writers of those Hebrew and Greek words were talking about the sun “coming in” or “going away”.

So like I said… there is NO scripture in the entire Bible that ACTUALLY mentions the sun rising or setting.  These are post-Copernican ideas that are applied TO the words of scriptures via bias and personal understanding of the latter translators.

 

 

[mikeboll64]

And for those who couldn’t bother with that previous long post, here’s the synopsis…

There was a Hebrew word “bo” that meant “to come” or “to go” – depending on context.

The LXX scholars translated that word into Greek as “duno” – which obviously still mean “to come” or “to go” – depending on context.

Later English scholars – believing the earth is a ball, and that when the sun “goes” it is actually “setting” behind the ball – translated a word that meant “to go” as “to set”.

Therefore we now have English Bibles that say the sun “sets” when no Hebrew or Greek writer of scripture conveys any such idea.

[Dig4truth]

But Mike, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan and Bill Nye would disagree with you and they are … oh, God hating atheists. Never mind.

Anyway, great research in the main place we should go first to find truth – the Bible. Unfortunately some put more confidence in the above mentioned people than the Creator Himself.

 

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike and Dig4truth. ……They just anounced  there is a private company that will take anyone up to space and a 90 min.  ride around the complete earth, for 250,00. Do you think all those people are all in the conspiracy theorists group too. ☺

Soon there will be thousand of unrelated people seening that the world is round for themselves, how will that effect you flat earth belifs then, will you then change you opinions?

Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene

[Proclaimer]

1416. dunó (to sink into)

Strong’s Concordance

dunó: to enter, to sink into
Original Word: δύνω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: dunó
Phonetic Spelling: (doo’-no)
Definition: to enter, to sink into
Usage: I sink, set (as the sun).

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin
a form of duó (to sink)
Definition
to enter, to sink into
NASB Translation
set (1), setting (1).

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 1416: δύνω

δύνω, δύω; 2 aorist ἔδυν; 1 aorist (in Greek writings transitively) ἐδυσα (Mark 1:32 L Tr WH), cf. Alexander Buttmann (1873) Ausf. Spr. ii., p. 156f; Winers Grammar, p. 84 (81); Buttmann, 56 (49); (Veitch, see under the words); to go into, enter; go under, be plunged into, sink in: in the N. T. twice of the setting sun (sinking as it were into the sea), Mark 1:32; Luke 4:40. So times without number in Greek writings from Homer on; the Sept., Genesis 28:11; Leviticus 22:7, etc.; Tobit 2:4; 1 Macc. 10:50. (Compare: ἐκδύνω, ἀπεκδύνω (ἀπεκδύνομαι), ἐνδύνω, ἐπενδύνω, παρεισδύνω, ἐπιδύνω.)

STRONGS NT 1416: δύσις [δύσις, δύσεως, ἡ;

1. a sinking or setting, especially of the heavenly bodies;
2. of the quarter in which the sun sets, the west: Mark 16 WH (rejected) ‘Shorter Conclusion.’ (So both in singular and in plural: Aristotle, de mund. 3, p. 393{a}, 17; 4, p. 394^b, 21; Polybius 1, 42, 5 etc.)]

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance

to enter, to setOr dumi doo’-mee prolonged forms of an obsolete primary duo doo’-o (to sink) to go “down” — set.

Source: https://biblehub.com/greek/1416.htm

 

[Proclaimer]

It’s clear from my above post which is a straight copy and paste from Biblehub that concordances explicitly state that the meaning is ‘SINK’. It is especially used in the context of heavenly bodies according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon.

Couple that with the fact that from our perspective the sun goes down and you have two witnesses. A third witness is the fact that the word ‘SET’ is used to place down or upon (which is the bottom of the relevant area in question).

Further, when we tell our kids to settle down, we are telling them to LOWER their activity not raise it or keep it the same. When you set the table for instance, you are working on the table and not above it. Think of the table top as a flat earth surface. You are not putting the knives and forks above the table are you like your flat earth model suggests. That is, your model has the sun in an always raised position from the earth surface even while we clearly see that it sinks below the horizon.

Finally,  isn’t that ironic that you say to trust your senses because they say the earth is flat, yet you also say don’t trust your senses because the earth doesn’t actually sink below our horizon even though you clearly see the sun do that. This is the definition of cherry picking. It shows bias and bias hinders truth.

[mikeboll64]

T8:  …the Sept., Genesis 28:11; Leviticus 22:7

Now go find the Hebrew word in those verses that the LXX scholars translated as “duno”.  Find out what THAT word meant, and how it was used in scripture.  Or you could just actually READ my post, where I already went through all that.

[mikeboll64]

My latest…

[mikeboll64]

T8:  It’s clear from my above post which is a straight copy and paste from Biblehub that concordances explicitly state that the meaning is ‘SINK’. It is especially used in the context of heavenly bodies according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon.

Now dig deeper… like I did.  The Greek word “duno” was used to translate the Hebrew word “bo” in the LXX.  Go find out what “bo” means, and look at scriptures that have that word so you can see what it meant.  Once you find out that it meant “to come” or “to go” – depending on the context… and was used exactly that way in a bunch of Hebrew scriptures, you’ll have to ask why the LXX authors used “duno” to translate a Hebrew word that meant “to come” or “to go”.  And THEN you’ll have your real meaning of “duno”, because you’ll understand that the LXX scholars wouldn’t have used a word that means “sink” to translate a Hebrew word that means “to come” or “to go”.  And THEN you’ll start to understand that the men telling us what these ancient Greek and Hebrew words mean have to GUESS when they are only in the scriptures once or twice.  And since in this case, the two scriptures that have the word are about the sun GOING AWAY, and their personal bias is that when the sun GOES AWAY it is SETTING, they just up and gave “duno” a meaning of “sink” or “set”… when it actually just means “to go”.

Like I said, there is NO scripture that ACTUALLY says the sun rises or sets.  Those ideas come from later translators whose personal beliefs equate “the sun going away” to “the sun setting”.  It doesn’t mean that’s what the Hebrew or Greek words actually meant, or that the writers were trying to convey any such thing when they all believed the earth was stationary and the sun came and went overhead… not set behind a ball earth.

[Proclaimer]

Now dig deeper… like I did. The Greek word “duno” was used to translate the Hebrew word “bo” in the LXX. Go find out what “bo” means, and look at scriptures that have that word so you can see what it meant. Once you find out that it meant “to come” or “to go” – depending on the context… and was used exactly that way in a bunch of Hebrew scriptures, you’ll have to ask why the LXX authors used “duno” to translate a Hebrew word that meant “to come” or “to go”. And THEN you’ll have your real meaning of “duno”, because you’ll understand that the LXX scholars wouldn’t have used a word that means “sink” to translate a Hebrew word that means “to come” or “to go”. And THEN you’ll start to understand that the men telling us what these ancient Greek and Hebrew words mean have to GUESS when they are only in the scriptures once or twice. And since in this case, the two scriptures that have the word are about the sun GOING AWAY, and their personal bias is that when the sun GOES AWAY it is SETTING, they just up and gave “duno” a meaning of “sink” or “set”… when it actually just means “to go”.

First, I am going to blow the flat earth model out of the water with what the sun would really do if it didn’t go under the horizon.

Boom! Game Over right there.

[Author]

Posts